There's definitely a difference betwee n being "thin" and being CR. From what I can see of Whoa's diet he is eating pretty low carb, avoiding grains and dairy. Those are 3 things just "thin" people don't necessarily do. Add on top of that whatever metabolic changes happen to CR people and you've probably got a recipe for a much healthier, longer, less aged life.

My Mom is thin too at age 86, but she's thin because of a side-effect of COPD. She's also going downhill very fast right now. Failing vision, glaucoma, corneal damage, maybe a bit of senility, osteoperosis (probably due to gluten intolerance), and blood sugar issues. She doesn't want to change her diet even though she now knows, thanks to a DNA test I had, that she probably shouldn't eat wheat.

I cannot look into why your family experienced strokes etc.. but being thin doesn't make you less vunrable to problems in old age. Calorie Restriction isn't really about being thin at all, it's about lowering energy intake. Meaning If I were to eat 2200 k/cal a day and burn off 700 k/cal , I would not gain the same benifits as a person eating 1500k/cal . Changes in the body of humans show exactly what the animals show, also remember that CR improves the health and extends life almost universally, even monkeys are showing amazing benifits on CR. Preliminary data shows that the human body and mind is also changing due to CR.



There are many reasons for this, you have to factor in things like Undiagnosed cancers, Smoking, Poor diet, Medications, Deficiencies, and various diseases. The western world is *sick* and it's getting worse.

I can't absaloutly say that CR will extend maximum life span but I think it's the best way we know how today.

Please read this article below, my friends participated in the study:

http://mednews.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/851.html

Calorie restriction drastically reduces risk of heart attack, stroke and diabetes

April 20, 2004 — People who severely restrict their caloric intake drastically reduce their risk of developing diabetes or clogged arteries, the precursor to a heart attack or stroke. In fact, according to researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, some risk factors were so low they were comparable to those of people decades younger.

"It's very clear from these findings that calorie restriction has a powerful, protective effect against diseases associated with aging," Holloszy says. "We don't know how long each individual actually will end up living, but they certainly have a much longer life expectancy than average because they're most likely not going to die from a heart attack, stroke or diabetes."

Research on mice and rats has shown that stringent and consistent calorie restriction increases the animals' maximum lifespan by about 30 percent and protects them against cancer. This study is the first to examine individuals who have been on calorie restriction diets for a long period of time.

The researchers recruited participants through a national organization called the Caloric Restriction Optimal Nutrition Society. By eating small amounts of nutrient-dense foods, members of this group try to consume between 10 and 25 percent fewer calories than the average American while still attempting to maintain proper nutrition. The 18 individuals who participated in the study had voluntarily been following this very low-calorie diet for three to 15 years. This group was compared with 18 age- and gender-matched individuals who ate a typical Western diet.

Holloszy's team found the two groups not only differed in the number of calories consumed, but also in the composition of their diets. Individuals in the calorie restriction group ate between about 1,100 and 1,950 calories per day depending on height, weight and gender, and these calories consisted of about 26 percent protein, 28 percent fat and 46 percent complex carbohydrates. In contrast, the comparison group consumed between about 1,975 and 3,550 calories per day, with only 18 percent of their calories from protein, 32 percent from fat and 50 percent from carbohydrates, including refined, processed starches.

Atherosclerosis — clogged arteries that can lead to a heart attack or stroke — already is the leading cause of death in the Western world, and the problem is continuing to grow. So Holloszy's team specifically focused on the risk factors for this condition. They measured multiple indications of early or impending atherosclerosis, including blood pressure and levels of several biological markers in the blood, including cholesterol and triglycerides. They also measured the levels of glucose and insulin in the blood to gauge diabetes risk, another major health concern in the American population.

People in the calorie restriction group had total and low-density lipoprotein — known as LDL or "bad" cholesterol — levels comparable to the lowest 10 percent of the population in their respective age groups. Their high-density lipoprotein — known as HDL or "good" cholesterol — levels were in the 85 to 90 percentile for middle-aged men. That finding was a surprise because HDL levels typically decrease when individuals follow low-fat diets to lose weight.

Triglyceride levels — which, when elevated, can lead to atherosclerosis — were even more impressive in the calorie restriction group: They were lower than more than 95 percent of Americans in their twenties, despite the fact that the study participants' ages ranged from 35 to 82.

In contrast, cholesterol and triglyceride levels in the comparison group were in the 50th percentile for average middle-aged Americans. Moreover, 12 of the individuals in the calorie restriction group provided medical records from before and during the diet. Their cholesterol and triglyceride scores also were close to the 50th percentile for middle-aged Americans before the diet, and levels fell the most dramatically during their first year of calorie restriction.

Blood pressure scores in the restricted group also were equivalent to those of much younger individuals. The average blood pressure in the normal diet group was about 130/80, which is standard for the typical American. In comparison, the calorie restriction group's average was about 100/60, akin to the blood pressure of an average 10-year-old.

Fasting glucose and insulin — both markers of the risk of developing diabetes — also were significantly lower in the calorie restriction group, with insulin concentrations as much as 65 percent lower.

All other risk factors measured also were significantly better in the calorie restriction group. They included body mass index, body fat mass, C-reactive protein and the thickness of the carotid artery, the main blood vessel that runs from the heart to the brain.

"These effects are all pretty dramatic," Fontana says. "For the first time, we've shown that calorie restriction is feasible and has a tremendous affect on the risk for atherosclerosis and diabetes."

The team currently is conducting a controlled, prospective study comparing calorie restriction to the average American diet. They ultimately hope to follow these individuals for a longer period of time to assess the long-term effects of calorie restriction on biological markers of aging.

But we already know from much research that low carbing drastically reduces risk of heart attack, stroke and diabetes.
And please remember that other research found no benefits to humans by restricting calories.

Why starve yourself when you can have the same, or better, health benefits from eating a healthy, tasty low carb diet?

Rosebud

If anyone is interested in looking at some videos check these out:

Video on the left is from Discovery Canada on CR:

http://video.search.yahoo.com/searc...rie+restriction

another one here from CBS : http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002...ain514443.shtml - Video on the right

heres another one, he been practising it for quite a long time now:

http://www.cbc.ca/clips/ram-lo/reith_caloric0405131.ram

or

http://www.cbc.ca/clips/mov/reith_caloric0405131.mov


Matt

the mathematical model? That really doesn't prove anything. Infact, what a waste of resources. While there is zero evidence to my knowledge that LOW CARB extends maximum life span. It has been tried already. No doubt it has benifits though!


Do you have to be skinny to get benifits from CR!?

NO!

Genetically "fat" mice on a calorie-restricted diet are as big as some other fully fed mice - but they live 50% longer when calories are reduced. It's got nothing to do with weight at all. Whats also interesting is that the mice that are on CR end up consuming the same amount of calories during their more extended life span as the controls did when they were alive.

Well, if you want to live a long boring life by restricting calories, go for it.

But I doubt you will ever convince us (members of this low carb BB) that our healthy, low carb, proven-to-prevent-and-treat-many-health-problems way of eating is inferior to just plain starving yourself.
You might also remember that, as LC Dave pointed out, many of us have tried low calorie diets as part of our attempts to lose weight, and wound up gaining weight as well as gaining health problems.

Rosebud

I don't understand why you cannot be convinced, it's like you don't want to be... which is your choice I guess. CR has around 70 years of data to back it up, all animals show the same changes and so do humans.

I don't have a boring life, I love life and look forward to the future and seeing it, thats why I do CR.

- All my allergies have gone into remission

- My IBS have gone

- People doing CR don't really get ill anymore with colds, flu and other infections (if we do get a cold it only lasts a couple of hours) All my close family been ill, my friends, teachers, students in my class and I never get affected anymore, before I used to be the first one ill! lol

- My ability to learn has improved, aswell as memory.

- I feel more alert

- I have more energy

- Don't get stressed out easily and am usually calm

- I feel great and my blood results are Excellent

Bottom line, doing calorie restriction is EXTREMELY EASY and my motivation is to live longer which keeps my on track. Infact I don't think i'd ever go back to eating junk ever again. You should see the qauntity of the food I eat, my Dinners is HUUGEE.

I want QUALITY and QUANTITY of life. Right now being healthy is what quality of life is about. CR has not stopped me from enjoying life, I love life even more now.

It's hard to get across how easy I find it It's definitly not what the news reporters say, life has improved so much I don't know how I could not do it. Maybe some people here didn't do it correctly :S ?

Having a lot of protein helps, I generally get atleast 80g protein a day, usually around 100g. Fat makes up 30% of my total calories and the complex carbs keep me going.

Very easy stuff

Besides the calorie restriction part, you're not saying ANYTHING we haven't heard before from countless low-carbers here and elsewhere. What's so different?

I must have snapped while reading this thread since I'm going to respond to it. And here's the burning question that no CRONfolk have ever been able to answer.

What is the genetic advantage to humans if we live a third longer than we do now?

I always wince when I see someone say "it's like you don't want to be convinced". It speaks of an inability to see things from another point of view. I am intrigued by the CR lifestyle. The research for and against it is far from conclusive, but if you like it, all the better. It certainly doesn't seem to be doing you any harm, but it may not be doing the good you think it is.

I can list a near-identical set of benefits I've had from low carbing, plus having lost nearly 100 pounds. I don't think you can draw a thing from CR that I haven't from LC. In fact, although you say it has little to do with being skinny, you're very thin. It almost surely has to reduce muscle mass to eat so few calories, once it has gone through your fat stores.

Your improvements are great, but they are nothing that many thousands of people here also have -- and we aren't losing muscle mass like you appear to have lost.

It's impossible to say whether or not you'll really live longer due to this at this point, and there isn't enough information either direction to say any of us will.

In short, you can't convince us not because we are stubborn. You can't convince us because your information isn't very persuasive.

I don't always do what is genetically advantageous to humans. If I did, I probably should have reproduced, but I didn't. But I would suspect that if one started on CR early enough, and it really worked, one's reproductive years might be extended.

I can't afford to live past my 70s, my money will be gone.

You'd just have to stay working, Nancy. Which you would, hopefully, be able to do since you'd have the health and vigor of a much younger person.

Although that idea of working for a lot more years isn't real attractive to me...

Reproductive years, perhaps. No evidence for this yet, unfortunately.

The evidence we DO have is that calorie restriction has a clear, negative effect on fertility in all plants and in all animals.

Ok...I've been doing a bit of research (like requested) and CR doesnt seem that drastically different from low-carb (different yes...but not any kind of bizarre new spectrum.) The two biggest differences I saw were CR being low-fat and simply more focused on calorie intake. Both of those considerations are incorporated into many lc diets to facilitate losses.

What I also found however, is that the goal of CR seems to be to eat at a caloric level that will maintain the lowest healthy weight for any given individual by eating minimal calories required for maintenance with maximum nutrition. In other words...from what i've found...once you've hit that low end of the spectrum, you should be adjusting your caloric intake to maintain. It doesnt seem that losses should continue if you're doing it right. Were I to follow it...my goal weight should be somewhere around 117-125 (depending on the chart referenced) for my height....which is low but not scary-low. (It is, however, lower than I care to be) It didnt seem to be about eating below caloric bodily requirements, although many people following CRON appear to do just that.

So while it's not for me...it doesnt seem like a scary concept if followed correctly. I wouldnt, however, consider Whoa a good example of how to do it correctly based on what I've read and on his current weight (~no offense meant Whoa....you said you're trying to gain a bit and I'm sure there's a learning curve.) Admittedly, I havent read any books...I've only done online research....so take my current opinions with a grain of salt. I may pick up "the Longevity diet" just out of curiousity and to expand my horizons....not out of any desire to change plans because I love my WOE.

[this response was to Lisa's note a couple pages back...I didn't realize that there were a lot of other entries in between her response and mine -- sorry for any confusion! I still stand firmly by what I've said here...]

Ah, but you see, I mentioned the importance of preventing osteoporosis, and avoiding HTN, etc. If you avoid doctors, you really aren't taking good care of your health, in my opinion. And if you are thin because all you consume is black coffee and cigarettes, you probably aren't going to live as long as someone who takes care of their health, but is slightly overweight. The reason they call HTN "the silent killer" is because it usually has few or no symptoms. Osteoporosis is another condition that has a very insidious onset; people should be getting at least a DEXA scan as they enter in menopausal years (for men, you should start a little later -- they are less prone to osteoporosis until age 65 or so, if I'm not mistaken). Unfortunately, basic labwork and tests aren't always done, and these conditions progress unchecked. Being thin AND healthy is the best solution, in my opinion, but being slightly overweight (BMI of 26 or 27, for example) probably isn't a problem if the aforementioned conditions are under control. It is well known that HTN, DM, and dyslipidemia, left untreated, reduce lifespan. And it is also well known that those with metabolic syndrome, which is characterized by abdominal obesity (waist measurement of 35" or more in women, 40" or more in men), HTN, Type 2 DM, and dyslipidemia, are much more likely to be overweight. I worked in a DM clinic earlier this year, and virtually every type 2 DM pt I saw was overweight, or had been overweight when they developed the condition. You can usually tell someone with metabolic syndrome at sight after awhile; the labwork merely affirms the diagnosis. And, these same people were often able to control their DM and HTN through diet and exercise. The actual diet was less important than the fact that they lost weight. Weight loss was actually more effective than using oral medications or insulin!

While I have no intention of becoming clinically underweight (I'd have to be <110 pounds, which is unlikely!) I do plan to go down to at least my ideal body weight (125) and maybe slightly lower, if I can handle it. But I will also get regular blood work, check my BP regularly, get regular weight-bearing exercise, have a DEXA scan in the next 5 years (I'm 44), and eat nutritious foods. Being thin isn't worth anything if you aren't simultaneously taking care of your overall health. The bottom line is living healthfully in ALL ways, as I've stated before.